He'd be getting disagreement either way and there are "logical and pragmatic" arguments on both sides of the issue, so he didn't corner the market there by picking one of the sides. It's also arguably the more popular side to protect your starters rather than play under their current circumstances. Look at this board, including you, for example. The vast majority are all in favor of what he's doing. And arguably the less ballsy move to do so knowing that if a critical starter did get hurt if he played them he'd get a firestorm of criticism he's not exposed to by taking the safer route.
Yes, he's showing decisive leadership, which is good. It's not particularly heroic or logical, but it is decisive. On the other side, you have a coach like Bill Belichick prioritizing holding onto the top seed rather than risk falling to the 2nd seed, which is about the same difference as the 3rd or 4th seed. He's playing his starters with a bye already secured and the worst that can happen is they fall from 1st to 2nd. I wouldn't say he's being illogical or nonsensical nor acting cowardly in some way because he's a afraid of criticism. It's just decisive leadership as well, that made a different decision.
